HILARIO, JOSE NOEL B.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GAYAM PASIMIO, GR NO. 205590,

SEPTEMBER 2, 2015, J. VELASCO JR.

The employment of fraud, duress, or undue influence is a serious charge, and to be

sustained it must be supported by clear and convincing proof; it cannot be
presumed.

FACTS:

Pasimio filed a case for collection of a sum of money pursuant to the bank
deposits she had with PNB. PNB however, after presenting several notarized
documents and promissory notes presenting the loans secured by the deposited
amount refused to deliver back the deposited amount in light of the compensation
when Pasimio failed to pay those loans.

The RTC rendered a decision by relying on the statements of Pasimio that she
was defrauded in signing pro forma forms and promissory notes which serves as
evidence of her loans to the bank which consequently negate compensation. The CA
affirmed the decision of the RTC by relying on the mere allegations of fraud and by
completely discrediting the value of those notarized documents and the value of the
promissory notes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in giving more credence to bare allegations of fraud
over a notarized documents and promissory notes?

RULING:

Yes. There is no allegation or evidence that Gregorio and Miranda influenced

Pasimio by employing means she could not well resist, and which controlled her
volition and induced her to sign the loan documents and Affidavit, which otherwise
she would not have executed. Also, there was no evidence showing that Gregorio
and Miranda's influence interfered with Pasimio's exercise of independent discretion
necessary to determine the advantage or disadvantage of signing these documents.

Then, too, Pasimio failed to prove that Gregorio and Miranda defrauded her.
Taking into consideration the personal conditions of Pasimio, there is no clear and
convincing evidence establishing serious fraud or deceit, insidious words or
machinations on the part of PNB or its officers, sufficient to impress or lead her into
error.

Further the law provides for the presumption that: a) that there was sufficient
consideration for a contract; (b that a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed
for a sufficient consideration. Hence, with Pasimios failure to substantiate her
allegations of fraud and with the corresponding presumption of considerations when
the promissory note and documents were made, her claim must fall.